Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

The modern mainstream consensus is that all of the books of the New Testament including the Gospel of Matthew were written in a form of Koine Greek.[1][2]

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is a group of related theories commonly taking as their starting point the testimony of some early church fathers such as Jerome that Matthew the Apostle had originally written a gospel in Hebrew, or the "Hebrew language" which at the time was just as likely to be the related Aramaic of Jesus, and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors. Among these the Proto-Gospel hypothesis is particularly associated with Lessing.

Related is the "Aramaic Matthew hypothesis" of Theodor Zahn (1897), who shared a belief in an early lost Aramaic Matthew, but did not connect it to the surviving fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the works of Jerome.[3][4]

As with the canonical Gospel of Matthew the traditional ascription of the authorship of the historical tax-collector of Capernaum to these Jewish-Christian Gospels is regarded as unlikely by critical scholars. The fragments of the Jewish Christian gospels attributed to the disciple, like the Synoptic Gospel itself, appear to be anonymous.

The Hebrew Gospel hypotheses have varying views of the relationship, if any, of the Jewish Christian Gospels to the canonical Gospel of Matthew, such as a hypothetical Hebrew or Aramaic proto-Matthew (in German Ur-Matthew).

Contents

Proponents of a Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

The first generations of hypotheses concerning a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew were primarily based on the testimony of some early church fathers, not higher criticism of textual sources. For example Grotius (1641) was a notable advocate of a simple approach that assumed that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was simply translated into Greek from a lost Hebrew original.[5] This leads to the view of Theodor Zahn.

Lessing, Olshausen

18th Century scholarship was more critical. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1778) posited a lost Hebrew Gospel as a proto-Gospel common source used freely for the 3 Greek Synoptic Gospels.[6] Hermann Olshausen (1832)[7] suggested a lost Hebrew Matthew was the common source of Greek Matthew and the Jewish-Christian Gospels mentioned by Epiphanius, Jerome and others.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Leon Vaganay, Lucien Cerfaux, Xavier Leon-Dufour and Antonio Gaboury from 1952 attempted to revive Lessing's proto-gospel hypothesis.[14][15][16][17][18]

Nicholson, Handmann

Bodley's Librarian and a noted Celticist, Edward Nicholson (1879) proposed that Matthew wrote two Gospels, the first in Greek, the second in Hebrew. The Westminster Review of 1880 noted "Mr. Nicholson's hypothesis is that Matthew wrote at different times the Canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or that part of it which runs parallel to the former."[19] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) article Gospel of the Hebrews notes that; "E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews" but also that "it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars."[20]

Rudolf Handmann (1888) proposed an Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews[21] but reasoned that Gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew and there never was a Hebrew Ur-Matthew,[22] but argued that this Aramaic document was a second source of a proto-Mark.[23]

Parker, Edwards

Pierson Parker (1940)[24] proposed the hypothesis of a Hebrew Ur-Matthew (or M-Source) as a solution to the Synoptic Problem.[25]

James R. Edwards (2009) suggests that the unique elements of Gospel of Luke ("Special Luke", see graphic in Wikipedia article Synoptic Gospels and L source) can be explained by Luke having used a Hebrew source, identified as a lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. In the introduction to his book The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition (2009) Edwards writes that "This book is dedicated to exploring the various ramifications of this hypothesis. Indeed, I hope to offer sufficient evidence to transform a hypothesis into a viable theory of the development of the Synoptic tradition."[26] Edwards acknowledges that his hypothesis is "controversial".[27] Edward's primary thesis is that a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the common source of both the Jewish-Christian Gospels and material in Gospel of Luke. A review of Edwards' book, including the reproduction of a diagram of Edwards' proposed relationship, was published by the Society of Biblical Literature's Review of Biblical Literature in March 2010.[28]

Use of Patristic sources in the hypothesis

Various patristic sources form part of the basic hypothesis of an original Hebrew proto-Matthew.

Papias

A prominent form of this hypothesis is that the logia of Papias formed an entire Hebrew Gospel, originating from Matthew the Evangelist c64-67AD and being translated into Greek by unknown writers c.90AD.[29] However this reading of Papias words is disputed,[30] and in the opinion of Walter Bauer (1934) Papias' statement should be understood as an attempt to defend the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew from being used improperly, since he considered heretics in Asia Minor were misusing it.[31]

Jerome

While Jerome was beginning his studies at Chalcis on Euboea he had sent to him a copy of a Nazarene edition of Matthew in Hebrew.[32] This is to be distinguished from fictitious letters of Jerome found in the preface of some copies of the 6thC Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew noted in the edition of New Testament Apocrypha by Tischendorf.[33]

Criticism of the hypothesis

Carl August Credner (1832)[34] identified three Jewish-Christian Gospels; Jerome's Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Greek Gospel of the Ebionites cited by Epiphanius in his Panarion, and a third cited by Origen. In the 20th Century the majority school of critical scholarship, such as Hans Waitz, Philip Vielhauer and Albertus Klijn, proposed a tripartite distinction between Epiphanius' Greek Jewish Gospel, Jerome's Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel, and a Gospel of the Hebrews, which was produced by Jewish Christians in Egypt, and like the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews was Hebrew only in nationality not language. The exact identification of which Jewish Gospel is which in the references of Jerome, Origen and Epiphanius, and whether each church father had one or more Jewish Gospels in mind, is a problematic area.[35] However the presence in patristic testimony concering three different Jewish Gospels with three different traditions regarding the baptism of Christ suggests multiple traditions.[36]

The traditional Lutheran commentator Richard Lenski (1943) wrote regarding the "hypothesis of an original Hebrew Matthew" that "whatever Matthew wrote in Hebrew was so ephemeral that it disappeared completely at a date so early that even the earliest fathers never obtained sight of the writing"[37] Helmut Köster (2000) casts doubt upon the value of Jerome's evidence for linguistic reasons.[38]

See also

References

  1. ^ Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical 1995 p52 "The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek of daily conversation. The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament, .."
  2. ^ Archibald Macbride Hunter Introducing the New Testament 1972 p9 "How came the twenty-seven books of the New Testament to be gathered together and made authoritative Christian scripture? 1. All the New Testament books were originally written in Greek. On the face of it this may surprise us."
  3. ^ "What is its relation to the Aramaic Matthew ? This is the crux of the whole matter. Only a summary can be attempted. (a) One view is that the Greek Matthew is in reality a translation of the Aramaic Matthew. The great weight of Zahn's ..."
  4. ^ Homiletic review 1918 "The chief opponent is Zahn, who holds that the Aramaic Matthew comes first. Zahn argues from Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria that the order of the gospels is the Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew, Mark, Luke,"
  5. ^ William Horbury Herodian Judaism and New Testament study 2006 "... however, to Hugo Grotius's view (itself a development of earlier concern with the Semitic-language setting of the gospels)5 that Hebrew or Aramaic here lay beneath New Testament Greek and was used by Christ, whose gospel (in Hebrew, "
  6. ^ Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtsschreiber 1778 - New hypothesis on the Evangelists as merely human historians 1778
  7. ^ Nachweis..
  8. ^ Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition 2009 p.xxvii
  9. ^ Bo Reicke in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text - Critical Studies 1776-1976 p52 ed. Bernard Orchard, Thomas R. W. Longstaff - 2005 "No 2, the Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, stems from a remark of Papias implying that Matthew had compiled the Logia in Hebrew (Eusebius, History III. 39. 16). Following this, Epiphanius and Jerome held that there was an older Gospel of
  10. ^ Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman cults: Studies for ... -p42 Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith - 1975 ... developed out of this latter form of the proto-gospel hypothesis: namely Matthew and Luke have copied an extensive proto-gospel (much longer than Mark since it included such material as the sermon on the mount, etc. ...
  11. ^ The Two-source hypothesis: a critical appraisal Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Joseph B. Tyson, William O. Walker - 1985 -"Our present two-gospel hypothesis developed out of this latter form of the proto-gospel hypothesis: namely Matthew and Luke have copied an extensive proto-gospel (much longer than Mark since it included such material as the sermon on ..."
  12. ^ The Progressive Publication of Matthew p22 B. Ward Powers - 2010 "B. Reicke comments (Orchard and Longstaff 1978, 52): [T]he Proto-Gospel Hypothesis . . . stems from a remark of Papias implying that Matthew had compiled the logia in Hebrew (Eusebius, History 3.39.16). Following this, Epiphanius and ..."
  13. ^ Hugo Grotius, theologian: essays in honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes p73 Guillaume Henri Marie Posthumus Meyjes, Henk J. M. Nellen, Edwin Rabbie - 1994 "I am referring here to the Proto-Gospel Hypothesis of Lessing and the Two Gospel Hypothesis of Griesbach.24 ... 19 (on Lessing's Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, " Urevangeli- umshypothese") and 21-22 (on Griesbach's Two Gospel Hypothesis). ..."
  14. ^ John Haralson Hayes New Testament, history of interpretation 2004 "The proto-gospel hypothesis. The University of Louvain was once a center of attempts to revive Lessing's proto-gospel theory, beginning in 1952 with lectures by Leon Vaganay and Lucien Cerfaux 8, who started again from Papias's reference to a .."
  15. ^ Bo Reicke The roots of the synoptic gospels 1986
  16. ^ Between faith and unbelief: American transcendentalists and the p 23 Elisabeth Hurth - 2007 "Ralph Waldo Emerson was even prepared to go beyond Johann Gottfried Eichhorn's Proto-Gospel hypothesis, arguing that the common source for the synoptic Gospels was the oral tradition. The main exposition of this view was, as Emerson pointed out in his fourth vestry ..."
  17. ^ Interpretation: Union Theological Seminary in Virginia - 1972 "Gaboury then goes on to examine the other main avenue of approach, the proto-Gospel hypothesis. Reviewing the work of Pierson Parker, Leon Vaganay, and Xavier Leon-Dufour (who is Antonio Gaboury's mentor), the writer claims that they have not ...
  18. ^ Elisabeth Hurth In His name: comparative studies in the quest for the historical - 1989 Emerson was even prepared to go beyond Eichhorn's Proto-Gospel hypothesis and argued that the common source for the synoptic Gospels was the oral tradition. The main exposition of this view was, as Emerson pointed out in his fourth ...
  19. ^ Westminster Review 1880
  20. ^ Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1915 article Gospel of the Hebrews; "E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or, at least, that large part of the latter which runs parallel to the former" (The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 104). The possibility of two editions of the same Gospel-writing coming from the same hand has recently received illustration from Professor. Blass' theory of two recensions of the Acts and of Luke's Gospel to explain the textual peculiarities of these books in Codex Bezae (D). This theory has received the adhesion of eminent scholars, but Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars."
  21. ^ R. Handmann Das Hebräer-Evangelium Texte und Untersuchungen 3 Leipzig 1888 p48
  22. ^ The Athenæum 1889 "It is difficult to share the confidence of Dr. Handmann in supposing that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew; or that a Hebrew Matthew had no existence. Nor is his conjecture that the Gospel of the Hebrews gave rise to the tradition, which was itself an inference from the Greek Matthew up to an Aramaean source worked into the latter, at all probable."
  23. ^ Philip Schaff A select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers 1904 "Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels, alongside of the "Ur-Marcus," (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew),"
  24. ^ P. Parker, “A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews,” in JBL 59 (1940) pp471 -478
  25. ^ Jay M. Harrington The Lukan passion narrative: the Markan Material in Luke 2000 "Pierson Parker (1940) argued that the Gospel according to the Hebrews had some connection to the Proto-Lk described by Streeter, though Parker apparently did not completely accept the theory as Streeter proposed it."
  26. ^ Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition
  27. ^ Whitworthian.com article on book
  28. ^ RBL Review by Timothy A. Friedrichsen (pdf), published 7/3/2010
  29. ^ Lenski Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 2008 p11
  30. ^ Klauck
  31. ^ W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkelt and Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen, 1934); reprinted 1964); Eng. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (9780962364273): Walter Bauer, Robert A. Kraft, Gerhard Krodel pp. 1 84ff., 204f.
  32. ^ Pritz Nazarene Christianity
  33. ^ Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction 2003 p78 "... fictitious exchange of letters between two bishops and the church father Jerome which precedes the work in some manuscripts, where it is described as the Hebrew or Aramaic Ur-Matthew, which Jerome himself had translated into Latin."
  34. ^ Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften Halle, 1832
  35. ^ Vielhauer, cf. Craig A. Evans, cf. Klauck
  36. ^ Vielhauer intro section to JG in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.
  37. ^ Lenski Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 1894-1936 published posth.1943 reprint 2008 p12-14 section "The Hypothesis of an Original Hebrew - Various forms of this hypothesis have been offered..."
  38. ^ Introduction to the New Testament: Volume 2 Page 207 "This hypothesis has survived into the modern period; but several critical studies have shown that it is untenable. First of all, the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Aramaic but was written in Greek on the basis of two Greek documents (Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q). Moreover, Jerome's claim that he himself saw a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the fragments that he assigned to it is not credible, nor is it believable that he translated the respective passages from Aramaic into Greek (and Latin), as he claims several times. ... It can be demonstrated that some of these quotations could never have existed in a Semitic language."